Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!prls!pyramid!decwrl!sun!chuq From: chuq@sun.uucp (Chuq Von Rospach) Newsgroups: net.comics,net.news Subject: Re: Man of Steel, Woman of Kleenex Message-ID: <3954@sun.uucp> Date: Thu, 5-Jun-86 15:01:48 EDT Article-I.D.: sun.3954 Posted: Thu Jun 5 15:01:48 1986 Date-Received: Sat, 7-Jun-86 00:23:41 EDT References: <1492@cvl.UUCP> <849@hoptoad.uucp> <260@hp-sdd.UUCP> Organization: Fictional Reality, uLtd Lines: 114 Xref: linus net.comics:3179 net.news:4112 > In article <849@hoptoad.uucp> tim@hoptoad.UUCP (Tim Maroney) writes: > >This article is not in the puiblic domain. Mr. Crist has commiteed a crime > >by publishing it without permission. > >There is no excuse for stealing a writer's work. > From: Nick -- Editor Badger/Nexus reviews > Gimme break pal. > Let's keep USENET free from "outside intervention". > A simple flame will suffice. No need to black-mail the guy into an > apology. From someone who claims to be an 'editor' you show very little respect for the concept of a Copyright -- the very lifeblood of an editor and a writer. Writers don't live on words, Writers live on the rights to use those words, and when that right is taken away, you can't just ignore it. This is NOT a situation where we can afford to keep USENET free from 'outside intervention' as you so nicely put it. It is USENET who has intervened in the outside world, not the other way around. To simply try to shake this off puts USENET outside the law, which is wrong. Period. To keep the group notified about what is going on, I've sent a letter to Larry Niven explaining the situation. I've also talked with Ken, and he will also be contacting Larry. Any further action is completely up to Larry Niven, based upon what he feels must be done to protect his Copyright, and Ken, to do what he feels needs to be done to apologize to the net. Again, I recommend seriously that all System Administrators find the offending copy of this article and delete it from their systems. All people who made copies of the story should destroy them. > Why, the next thing you know, IBM will be suing the USENET community for > making fun of the PC. Or better yet, everyone and their brother will > sue DEC because of Ken Ardnt's statement, plus the fact that he doesn't > put a disclaimer in his postings. Or better yet, Madonna will sue > the USENET because someone faked her name in a posting to net.singles, > and it's clear that she no longers has armpit hair. > Yeah, and the Catholics in net.religion.catholic will sue the Jews in > net.religion.jewish for not believing in Jesus, thus causing them to > question the meaning of Christmas trees. > Well I'll show them.. These questions have nothing to do with the topic of discussion, except to try to avoid the problem and play on emotionalisms. Legally, we are protected from IBM and Madonna because they are public figures, as long as we don't get into libelous material (Libel has nothing to do with Copyright). Religious freedom is protected under the First amendment, which has nothing to do with Copyright. Dec and Ken Arndt are on their own -- they can play with the EOC all they want, although that STILL has nothing to do with Copyright. I'll put this very simply. A law was broken. What we need to do now is to try to minimize the damage. USENET doesn't stand outside the law, although sometimes it seems to try. We simply do NOT take the legalities involved in the situation into consideration often enough, unless it is to our favor. There have been a number of cases of Copyright infringement on the net, this being the latest. There have also been a number of cases where AT&T's Unix licenses. If you really want USENET to be free of "outside intervention" you have to play by the rules and not give them a reason to intervene. We haven't, and so far we've been lucky. I don't want to be around when that luck runs out. A few rules to live by: o If it is Copyrighted, don't post it unless you have specific permission. If you aren't sure, assume it is Copyrighted until you find out otherwise. If you arne't sure, get permission or don't post. o If you see something that has been posted that you know to be Copyrighted, contact the poster and let them know. If it has been posted without permission, the Copyright owner must be informed. If it has been posted without permission AND without the Copyright notice, it is CRITICAL that the Copyright owner be notified and all reasonable attempts be made to protect the Copyright -- if this isn't done, that piece is in jeopardy of falling into the public domain. o If someone is silly enough to post something under their own name without permission, Copyright, or the original authors name, that is plagiarism. You think I'm hyper about Copyright, try that and see what happens. You don't want to know. Trust me. Just to give you an idea of breaking Copyright could be worth to you, an author can sue you for royalties on the piece the he should have gotten had you really bought it from him, at market rates. If it is determined that the posting damages future royalties (if, for example, it puts it into the public domain and forfeits the Copyright) you can be liable for all future royalties that story WOULD have made, plus punative damages. On top of this, you'll be hit with court costs and legal fees from both your lawyer and HIS lawyer. Who's liable? Damn good question. Definitely the person who posted the Copyright violater. Probably the people who administer/own the site it was posted on, or the people who own that machine, for not policing it properly. Possibly the entire net, or the individual companies that support the net with resources (i.e. every site that had a copy of the offending article or transported it to another site) for conspiring to break the Copyright. I don't know HOW someone would sue the net, or whether it would stick, but I'd certainly prefer not to see someone try and find out. Would YOU like to explain to YOUR boss why you just got a subpoena? Let's be careful, folks. With 20,000 readers (by Brian Reids estimates) we aren't small time anymore, and with size comes responsibility. Let's show some. chuq -- :From the lofty realms of Castle Plaid: Chuq Von Rospach chuq%plaid@sun.COM FidoNet: 125/84 CompuServe: 73317,635 {decwrl,decvax,hplabs,ihnp4,pyramid,seismo,ucbvax}!sun!plaid!chuq Dessert is probably the most important stage of the meal, since it will be the last thing your guests remember before they pass out all over the table. -- The Anarchist Cookbook